84887371

Hu’s on First


Couldn’t resist… From Secular Blasphemy:



(We take you now to the Oval Office.)

George: Condi! Nice to see you. What’s happening?

Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.

George: Great. Lay it on me.

Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.

George: That’s what I want to know.

Condi: That’s what I’m telling you.



It goes on…

84870050

Top Stories Thursday 21 Nov


Junius is involved in a discussion with
Natalie Solent about the welfare
state:



One of the unfortunate things the welfare state has done has been to push aside networks of voluntary co-operation, charities, friendly societies and so on. I’m happy to encourage a growth in that sector and I think the state can play a role in helping other people to do the things it does badly. (The trouble comes back of course when the state tries to micromanage housing-associations, universities and so on – and there’ll always be that temptation for politicians.) If you push me, I’d say that I support a pretty diverse eco-system of firms, co-operatives, some state agencies, charities and so on (what a wishy-washy social democrat I’ve become!). And I think the state has a role to play in maintaining that balance and diversity, since when we leave things to the market, short-term gain can lead to undesirable homogenization: witness the whole demutualization bonanza in the British financial sector. I don’t think efficiency is the only issue, by the way: the sort of institutions we have affect the sort of people we get – or at least their behaviour. (How could libertarians disagree given what they say about dependency?!). A system of diverse instititions rather than a thoroughgoing market society should provide opportunities for diverse sorts of people.


Beyond Corporate on her experience trying to get government contracts in San Francisco:

I sat there and listened to two other women/minority small business owners tell their stories of large firms using their women/minority/small business certification status with the City (and believe me, getting certified ain’t a walk in the park…it takes a lot of time and effort to get through the paperwork) to win big projects only to see not one dime spent for their time, effort and good business name. One woman even had a large firm put her name and company on their RFP without even telling her that they were doing so. She only found out about it when someone smelled a fish and checked in with her. Eight months later, she is still trying to get someone to go after the slimebags. In the mean time, I am sure that the slimebags are winning new business with the City, and she is winning, well, none.

84869221


Digby in the comments to this Eschaton post:

Let’s review just this week. The exemption from FOIA and potential for crass cronyism unseen since Boss Tweed in the cynically demagogued Homeland Security Bill, the convicted felon Poindexter’s secret surveillance project TIA and the wiretrap freedom granted by the Rhenquist appointed (and wing-nut Silberman dominated) secret FISA appeals court. Combine this with the ongoing bizarre inconsistency with which we are dealing with the various terrorism cases and the fact that most of this is being approved by the congress and likely to be validated by the courts and we see that we have a serious problem on our hands.



And to think I was stupidly counting on libertarians stepping up to the plate on this issue. But, I’m afraid that in light of the issues Atrios cites, and the obvious hard-on Bush and his cronies have for the serious (to the corporations and GOP idealogues) issue of “Tort Reform,” Reynolds’ solution is flaccid and impotent. How disappointing.


Ignatz discusses civil disobedience:

But one’s approach to civil disobedience — and particularly the avowed violation of an injunction or other specific legal order — does not, I think, require a lawyer to espouse a principle that cuts across ideological lines. The reason is that by engaging in civil disobedience of this sort, one is not invoking a legal right that one’s ideological opponents also have. Instead, civil disobedience of this sort is an act avowedly outside the law. One who does it must go into it, knowing that punishment (by contempt of court or otherwise) is the likely result. Even at the height of the civil rights movement, the Supreme Court upheld punishment of civil rights protesters for violating injunctions that they (correctly, in my view) felt were immoral and indeed unlawful. But that’s the deal: engaging in civil disobedience, in terms of violating an injunction or similar order, can subject you to punishment. And so — having recognized this — the lawyer is (I think) free to step out of the lawyer-shoes into human shoes and say “does it strike me that this cause is just enough, to warrant violating the order?”